On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 5:46 PM Trevor Woerner <twoerner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed 2023-02-08 @ 04:01:05 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 4:07 PM Trevor Woerner <twoerner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > But what about those lines that go out to general purpose headers such as > > > the 40 pins of the Raspberry Pi header? Most SBCs have some set of header > > > that's available to users to connect whatever devices they wish, many of > > > them have adopted the rpi's 40-pin layout. > > > > I think using the names on the header is fine, what I didn't want to see > > is things like the name of the pin on the SoC package or names made > > up from kernel-internal software constructs. As long as it is something > > real, and preferably unique I'm fine with it. > > > > One early example is the HiKey N96 board: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/hisilicon/hi3670-hikey970.dts > > Thank you for the clarification. Thinking from the user's point of view, I > added the actual pin number, then the SoC name, then the pin's label. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20230208014504.18899-1-twoerner@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > I'll send a v2 with just the pin's label. Would leaving the pin number, in > addition to the name, be okay? As long as it is clear that this is the pin number on the *header* not the pin number on the SoC package, this is fine. In order to clarify it, do like in the HiKey DTS and add verbose comments explaining what is going on. The DTS look like it does to be human-readable so be generous with comments. Yours, Linus Walleij
